Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[Scream of the Butterfly]

16 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

 

 

Elaborate please, how is 'circumstances where it is the only way to stay warm and stay alive' at all relevant to Michael Jackson and the question of children sleeping in his bed? This is not Stalingrad in 1943, this was a celebrity mansion in a secure environment. 

I'm not going to repeat everything that was said. Reread the conversation if you didn't comprehend it the first time. Evidently, your position isn't very strong or you wouldn't have to resort to quoting out of context.

Edited March 20, 2019 by Scream of the Butterfly

[OmarBradley]

On 3/18/2019 at 7:12 PM, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I have to disagree with the people who find it inherently wrong and abusive that anyone would share a bed with a child. In my world, it's perfectly normal that children sleep in the same bed with their parents or any other trusted adult. I've known children who continued co-sleeping all the way to their early teens. As far as I can tell it did no harm. A child sharing a bed with a total stranger of course wouldn't be considered normal under most circumstances. The families of the alledged victims have said Jackson was like family to them so rightly or wrongly he wasn't perceived as a stranger.

 

On 3/18/2019 at 8:23 PM, Scream of the Butterfly said:

For example, under circumstances where it is the only way to stay warm and stay alive.

 

8 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I'm not going to repeat everything that was said. Reread the conversation if you didn't comprehend it the first time. Evidently, your position isn't very strong or you wouldn't have to resort to quoting out of context.

I have read every post in this thread, which is staggering because I don't really care about the MJ issue specifically. But the pursuit of truth and condemnation of malice interests me, so here I am.

These are your last few posts and I even reread the last few pages for you. Still not seeing how your "stay warm and alive" statement is relevant to this discussion. Your argument seems to be that Michael wasn't a 'total stranger' to these children, so it makes sleeping in the same bed OK. The argument seems built on your personal experience of it being "perfectly normal that children sleep in the same bed with their parents or any other trusted adult. I've known children who continued co-sleeping all the way to their early teens."

This is your personal experience. Most children do not 'co-sleep' with their parents through their teens. I'm sure it happens, but it's not the norm. However, no one suggested a parent sleeping with their child is problematic, though into teens I think that's a bit abnormal, but not wholly immoral or wrong.

But do children sleep in the same bed as a 'trusted adult?' I'm not a parent admittedly, but I find that hard to believe on a mass scale. Who is this 'trusted adult?' Family friends? The neighbor? Soccer coach? Religions figure? Teacher? Famous celebrity who provides riches and experiences? Those roles should not yield the ability to sleep in the same bed as a child. One night here and there due to unique/circumstantial reasons may be OK (like temperature or a power outage, as you mentioned), but many nights in a row/many nights per week like MJ did? That's OK to you?

That's the crux of the issue, it wasn't a night here and there due to circumstance, it was consistent due to desire. Whether that desire came from the child, MJ, or both, MJ should have known as an adult it was wrong.

And as DD is noting, the allegations are outside of the bedroom now, so the circumstantial excuse of needing to sleep in the same bed seems less likely as the evidence grows of abuse elsewhere.

 

[Scream of the Butterfly]

3 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

 

 

I have read every post in this thread, which is staggering because I don't really care about the MJ issue specifically. But the pursuit of truth and condemnation of malice interests me, so here I am.

These are your last few posts and I even reread the last few pages for you. Still not seeing how your "stay warm and alive" statement is relevant to this discussion. Your argument seems to be that Michael wasn't a 'total stranger' to these children, so it makes sleeping in the same bed OK. The argument seems built on your personal experience of it being "perfectly normal that children sleep in the same bed with their parents or any other trusted adult. I've known children who continued co-sleeping all the way to their early teens."

This is your personal experience. Most children do not 'co-sleep' with their parents through their teens. I'm sure it happens, but it's not the norm. However, no one suggested a parent sleeping with their child is problematic, though into teens I think that's a bit abnormal, but not wholly immoral or wrong.

But do children sleep in the same bed as a 'trusted adult?' I'm not a parent admittedly, but I find that hard to believe on a mass scale. Who is this 'trusted adult?' Family friends? The neighbor? Soccer coach? Religions figure? Teacher? Famous celebrity who provides riches and experiences? Those roles should not yield the ability to sleep in the same bed as a child. One night here and there due to unique/circumstantial reasons may be OK (like temperature or a power outage, as you mentioned), but many nights in a row/many nights per week like MJ did? That's OK to you?

That's the crux of the issue, it wasn't a night here and there due to circumstance, it was consistent due to desire. Whether that desire came from the child, MJ, or both, MJ should have known as an adult it was wrong.

And as DD is noting, the allegations are outside of the bedroom now, so the circumstantial excuse of needing to sleep in the same bed seems less likely as the evidence grows of abuse elsewhere.

 

Seriously, you need to learn to read more carefully. I never said that MJ not being a total stranger made it okay to sleep in the same bed with children. Nor did I say it was normal for children to co-sleep with their parents through their teens. "stay warm and alive" was in reply to a question by somebody else. It was relevant to the discussion even if it didn't apply to the MJ case.

My stance on sharing a bed with a child is that there is nothing inherently wrong or abusive about it. Without knowing all the facts, I can't say whether it was right or wrong on this or that specific instance. Even if it was a total stranger, I wouldn't automatically accuse anyone of child abuse just because they slept in the same bed. However, I would be more inclined to hold it against the parents if they just dumbed their children with a stranger without a care in the world.

[OmarBradley]

6 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

Seriously, you need to learn to read more carefully. I never said that MJ not being a total stranger made it okay to sleep in the same bed with children. Nor did I say it was normal for children to co-sleep with their parents through their teens. "stay warm and alive" was in reply to a question by somebody else. It was relevant to the discussion even if it didn't apply to the MJ case.

My stance on sharing a bed with a child is that there is nothing inherently wrong or abusive about it. Without knowing all the facts, I can't say whether it was right or wrong on this or that specific instance. Even if it was a total stranger, I wouldn't automatically accuse anyone of child abuse just because they slept in the same bed. However, I would be more inclined to hold it against the parents if they just dumbed their children with a stranger without a care in the world.

You did not say it outright, but you did attempt to normalize the behavior as a defense for Michael Jackson.

Quote

In my world, it's perfectly normal that children sleep in the same bed with their parents or any other trusted adult. I've known children who continued co-sleeping all the way to their early teens. As far as I can tell it did no harm.

 

[action]

every time you bring your kid to music class, gym class, swimming class, church... you're trusting your kid to a stranger.

there is not a single normal parent who would for a moment question that..... but most of child abuse cases happen in that context.

I have a natural suspicion on male kindergarten teachers. Gym teachers, swimming teachers, music teachers.... it's men, and they're in the same room with our kids virtually unchecked. Call me paranoid, but I'm one of these 1% of parents who don't like this situation one bit.

And the facts prove me right. Just google "music teacher - abuse; gym teacher - abuse" and the results will come flying in.

Of course, not every male teacher is a pedophile, I'm not saying that, but many pedophiles will chose jobs that.... here comes the shocker... brings them in contact with kids.

We're rightly stressing how wrong it is to let your kid sleep with a stranger, but how many times does that happen in real life? And on the other hand, how many kids have "hobbies" where your kid is in the hands of a potential pedophile?

Well, not on my goddamn watch.

[Lio]

That is taking it much too far imo. I won't live like that, thinking every man is a potential rapist or paedophile. In reality, it's only a very very small minority who might harm a kid or woman. I think it's just a case of being sensible. Send your kids to the scouts, music class, swimming class... But don't let it spend days alone with an adult when there's no reason to.

When you stick to that, you'll probably be okay. There's never 100 percent safety in life.

[Angelica]

Okay then. Instead of debating whether or why a child might want to share a bed with an adult who wasn’t a family member, let’s take a minute to focus on the adult who went out of his way to share his bed with children he had no familial relationship to. The sane amongst us will wait over here. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Angelica

[DieselDaisy]

I don't know why there is so much focus on the bed issue since they were having sex in every conceivable place according to Safechuck. This issue was debated at length in Living with Michael Jackson fifteen years ago. The whole thing has moved on considerably since then! 

Edited March 21, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[downzy]

6 hours ago, action said:

every time you bring your kid to music class, gym class, swimming class, church... you're trusting your kid to a stranger.

there is not a single normal parent who would for a moment question that..... but most of child abuse cases happen in that context.

I have a natural suspicion on male kindergarten teachers. Gym teachers, swimming teachers, music teachers.... it's men, and they're in the same room with our kids virtually unchecked. Call me paranoid, but I'm one of these 1% of parents who don't like this situation one bit.

And the facts prove me right. Just google "music teacher - abuse; gym teacher - abuse" and the results will come flying in.

Of course, not every male teacher is a pedophile, I'm not saying that, but many pedophiles will chose jobs that.... here comes the shocker... brings them in contact with kids.

We're rightly stressing how wrong it is to let your kid sleep with a stranger, but how many times does that happen in real life? And on the other hand, how many kids have "hobbies" where your kid is in the hands of a potential pedophile?

Well, not on my goddamn watch.

What???

You do understand context, right?  You leave your kid with a teacher or swimming teacher in a classroom or a pool.  You're not leaving them to sleep in the same bed as the teacher or swim teacher.  You don't think context matters here?

Considering having your kid take a bus to school with other kids with a driver you don't know much about versus letting a stranger take your kid to school with no other kids in a windowless van.  Context, context, context.  I have no idea why you think leaving your kids with a school teacher is the same leap of faith as leaving your kids to sleep with Jackson in his bed over night.  As reported in the 2005 trial, Robson's mom received a request to bring her son over to Neverland Ranch at 1:30am in the morning.  Does that happen with school teachers?

There's always a risk regardless, but I think boundaries are crossed when a kid is put into a situation where they are on their own and find themselves in a dangerous situation.

Again, this whole conversation is fucked.  As @DieselDaisy correctly points out, there's no point in having this conversation.  What purpose are people trying to serve here?  I'm not sure the point of it.  Is it to excuse Jackson because the responsibility for protecting their kids fell on the parents?  Is it to excuse the parents, who saw dollar signs and access to celebrity and privilege they otherwise wouldn't have?

I suppose if you believe Jackson you have to excuse or rationalize this behaviour some how.  The amount of cognitive dissonance is staggering when on the one hand Jackson defenders acknowledge that Jackson slept in the same bed as children but also maintain that Jackson is 100 percent innocent and there's no possibility that Robson, Safechuck, and the other three children are telling the truth.

[Scream of the Butterfly]

10 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

You did not say it outright, but you did attempt to normalize the behavior as a defense for Michael Jackson.

 

I said what I did not so much as a defense for Michael Jackson but as a general statement in response to the idea that sharing a bed was abuse even if nothing sexual happened. Jackson is being accused of having done a lot more than just sleep with the children. If you believe the accusations, obviously you can't defend him just by pointing out that co-sleeping in a non-sexual context is perfectly normal.

[soon]

Don't leave your children anywhere that you dont know/don't have access to the Child Protection Protocols in place. Schools, Rec Centres, music lessons, Places of Worship, etc should all have policies including background checks on staff. Celebrities homes are less likely to have such policies in place.

 

[action]

45 minutes ago, downzy said:

What???

You do understand context, right?  You leave your kid with a teacher or swimming teacher in a classroom or a pool.  You're not leaving them to sleep in the same bed as the teacher or swim teacher.  You don't think context matters here?

Considering having your kid take a bus to school with other kids with a driver you don't know much about versus letting a stranger take your kid to school with no other kids in a windowless van.  Context, context, context.  I have no idea why you think leaving your kids with a school teacher is the same leap of faith as leaving your kids to sleep with Jackson in his bed over night.  As reported in the 2005 trial, Robson's mom received a request to bring her son over to Neverland Ranch at 1:30am in the morning.  Does that happen with school teachers?

There's always a risk regardless, but I think boundaries are crossed when a kid is put into a situation where they are on their own and find themselves in a dangerous situation.

Again, this whole conversation is fucked.  As @DieselDaisy correctly points out, there's no point in having this conversation.  What purpose are people trying to serve here?  I'm not sure the point of it.  Is it to excuse Jackson because the responsibility for protecting their kids fell on the parents?  Is it to excuse the parents, who saw dollar signs and access to celebrity and privilege they otherwise wouldn't have?

I suppose if you believe Jackson you have to excuse or rationalize this behaviour some how.  The amount of cognitive dissonance is staggering when on the one hand Jackson defenders acknowledge that Jackson slept in the same bed as children but also maintain that Jackson is 100 percent innocent and there's no possibility that Robson, Safechuck, and the other three children are telling the truth.

there is no excuse for these parents, period.

Not sure where I have excused jackson's behaviour. I've always maintained that jackson's behaviour was, while not illegal per sé, it was still "not normal".

As for my post where I address teachers and stuff, bus drivers and the likes. it's funny you mention bus drivers, because just today, I saw a news article on our local news site where a bus driver was convicted for inappropriately touching a girl (it's in dutch but you can translate if you like).

https://www.hln.be/regio/mechelen/buschauffeur-betastte-minderjarig-meisje-op-weg-naar-school-twee-jaar-effectief~a2759e5f/

A quick google search will yield many results of the connection between these kinds of jobs and child abuse. No need to act surprised in the way you do: this stuff happens. You go at great lenghts to talk about context, while at the same time criticising people who add context to the jackson case. that's not really fair don't you think?

Also, you're having a way bigger risk for your kid to be abused by some teacher or bus driver or whatever, rather than a total stranger sleeping with your kid in his bed (i mean, does the latter ever HAPPEN??). I'm just pointing out the level at which these abuse cases happen, and making the observation that not many people (including yourself) would ever have second thoughts about handing over your kid to them. That just strikes me as a bit.... inconsiderate?

Edited March 21, 2019 by action

[downzy]

1 hour ago, action said:

https://www.hln.be/regio/mechelen/buschauffeur-betastte-minderjarig-meisje-op-weg-naar-school-twee-jaar-effectief~a2759e5f/

A quick google search will yield many results of the connection between these kinds of jobs and child abuse. No need to act surprised in the way you do: this stuff happens. You go at great lenghts to talk about context, while at the same time criticising people who add context to the jackson case. that's not really fair don't you think?

Also, you're having a way bigger risk for your kid to be abused by some teacher or bus driver or whatever, rather than a total stranger sleeping with your kid in his bed (i mean, does the latter ever HAPPEN??). I'm just pointing out the level at which these abuse cases happen, and making the observation that not many people (including yourself) would ever have second thoughts about handing over your kid to them. That just strikes me as a bit.... inconsiderate?

And a google search of cars will reveal a long list of car crashes.  So?  Should we never ride cars again?  

The point being that there's a difference between leaving your kids with someone who is in a position of authority with a stated purpose and bringing your kid over at 1:30am because some guy who built a kiddy park at his house wants to have a sleep over.  

Yes, bus drivers, teachers, and other people working with children have committed similar crimes as those accused against Jackson.  Again, it's not really relevant and again I don't see the point of the argument.  Parents leave their kids with those individuals because their kids aren't likely to be put into compromised situations with those people under the conditions of engagement.  How is it you don't see the difference in dynamics between how Jackson related to children and how a school bus driver drives kids to school?

And what's the alternative?  Home school?  Never let your kid interact with any other adult and force them to live a life sheltered from the world?  Because there was an alternative to letting your kid sleep with a grown man: not let your kids sleep over with a grown man.  And I don't think any parent leaves their kids with another adult without some level of concern or anxiety.  The world can be a cruel and dangerous place, but a parent has to weigh protecting their children from it versus preparing them for it.  

Again, I don't understand the point you're making here.  Is it to defend Jackson?  Is it to defend Robson and Safechuck's parents?  

[SoulMonster]

8 hours ago, action said:

every time you bring your kid to music class, gym class, swimming class, church... you're trusting your kid to a stranger.

there is not a single normal parent who would for a moment question that..... but most of child abuse cases happen in that context.

I have a natural suspicion on male kindergarten teachers. Gym teachers, swimming teachers, music teachers.... it's men, and they're in the same room with our kids virtually unchecked. Call me paranoid, but I'm one of these 1% of parents who don't like this situation one bit.

And the facts prove me right. Just google "music teacher - abuse; gym teacher - abuse" and the results will come flying in.

Of course, not every male teacher is a pedophile, I'm not saying that, but many pedophiles will chose jobs that.... here comes the shocker... brings them in contact with kids.

We're rightly stressing how wrong it is to let your kid sleep with a stranger, but how many times does that happen in real life? And on the other hand, how many kids have "hobbies" where your kid is in the hands of a potential pedophile?

Well, not on my goddamn watch.

Well, it doesn't happen often that kids are molested after sleeping in beds with strangers, because kids almost never sleep in beds with strangers. And similarly, it happen more often that kids are molested when at various activities, because kids go to such activities all the time. So the absolute numbers are on your side, but if we look at the probability of an encounter with a stranger in a bed would lead to being molested, compared to the probability of a kid being molested at piano practise, then your point vanishes.

[DieselDaisy]

Michael Jackson allegedly had sexual encounters with children in virtually every conceivable place around the Neverland Ranch. The sleeping in bed thing is a virtual irrelevancy. You should have had this conversation back in 2003 when Bashir interviewed Michael.

Edited March 21, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

Well, it doesn't happen often that kids are molested after sleeping in beds with strangers, because kids almost never sleep in beds with strangers. And similarly, it happen more often that kids are molested when at various activities, because kids go to such activities all the time. So the absolute numbers are on your side, but if we look at the probability of an encounter with a stranger in a bed would lead to being molested, compared to the probability of a kid being molested at piano practise, then your point vanishes.

when do kids ever sleep with strangers?

I mean, what the?

it's a complete fabrication. it doesn't happen.

Jackson, by the own accounts of the victims and their mothers, was not a stranger at all. If you watched the documentary, they have spend the better half of it explaining how he was basically a family member.

again, even then, I don't approve of jackson's behaviour. it is not normal, not ever. But to start the debate from the premise that jackson was a stranger is just factually wrong. 

it just seems more logical for the haters to claim he was a stranger, it adds credibility to their case. For convenience issues, as it were.

@downzy and no, this post isn't to defend jackson or to defend anyone. it's just an observation. I'm not defending anyone. I'm not a bloody lawyer. I see parts and bits of the argument that make no sense to me and I'm just pointing them out. just having a conversation. My beliefs are clear: by now, I'm more inclined to believe jackson is guilty, but I have my doubts on the validity of "these" accusations.

[downzy]

46 minutes ago, action said:

when do kids ever sleep with strangers?

I mean, what the?

it's a complete fabrication. it doesn't happen.

Jackson, by the own accounts of the victims and their mothers, was not a stranger at all. If you watched the documentary, they have spend the better half of it explaining how he was basically a family member.

again, even then, I don't approve of jackson's behaviour. it is not normal, not ever. But to start the debate from the premise that jackson was a stranger is just factually wrong. 

it just seems more logical for the haters to claim he was a stranger, it adds credibility to their case. For convenience issues, as it were.

@downzy and no, this post isn't to defend jackson or to defend anyone. it's just an observation. I'm not defending anyone. I'm not a bloody lawyer. I see parts and bits of the argument that make no sense to me and I'm just pointing them out. just having a conversation. My beliefs are clear: by now, I'm more inclined to believe jackson is guilty, but I have my doubts on the validity of "these" accusations.

What does it matter if he's a stranger or not?  You seem to be focused on the wrong issue here.  It's the behaviour and action that's the issue.  

It doesn't really matter if he's a stranger or considered a "family member."  He's an unrelated man in his 30s sleeping in the same bed with little and teenage boys.  I would never feel comfortable with another male member of my family or close family friend sleeping with my child regardless of the reason.  

Nobody knows anything other than those directly involved.  As I've said before, i have no issues personally with anyone who personally believes Jackson is innocent.  Both Jackson and the accusers have some credibility issues.  It just comes down to who you think is more likely telling the truth when considering what has been presented so far.  I use to be fairly agnostic about the whole thing but the accounts by Robson and Safechuck definitely changed things for me.  Nothing presented by those who believe Jackson is innocent has done much to counter their accounts of what happened.  

[SoulMonster]

6 hours ago, action said:

when do kids ever sleep with strangers?

Just replace "strangers" with "someone not their primary caregiver" and the argument stands.

[DieselDaisy]

8 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Just replace "strangers" with "someone not their primary caregiver" and the argument stands.

Michael was by default the primary caregiver, the child having been left at Neverland by the family for significant periods - in this case Wade Robson's mother and family, the family being millions of miles away. Heck, even when the family was present they were usually located in a separate area of the ranch.

[SoulMonster]

32 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Michael was by default the primary caregiver, the child having been left at Neverland by the family for significant periods - in this case Wade Robson's mother and family, the family being millions of miles away. Heck, even when the family was present they were usually located in a separate area of the ranch.

You under the impression my post was about Michael Jackson? 

That being said, I highly doubt Michael Jackson was their primary caregiver.

[DieselDaisy]

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You under the impression my post was about Michael Jackson? 

That being said, I highly doubt Michael Jackson was their primary caregiver.

By default, he was. He actually wanted to adopt Wade Robson for an entire year - (to mother) ''leave Wade with me for a year and I'll further his career''.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

By default, he was. He actually wanted to adopt Wade Robson for an entire year - (to mother) ''leave Wade with me for a year and I'll further his career''.

Er, primary caregiver has to do to what extent the child considers that person his primary source of protection and comfort. It is usually a position it takes years to establish. As default parents take this role, but of course in cases of neglect and abuse the child may connect to someone else, or in the case of adoption or similar events, but then it might still take years before such a string emotional bond is formed. 

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Er, primary caregiver has to do to what extent the child considers that person his primary source of protection and comfort. It is usually a position it takes years to establish. As default parents take this role, but of course in cases of neglect and abuse the child may connect to someone else, or in the case of adoption or similar events, but then it might still take years before such a string emotional bond is formed. 

You are getting involved in one of your linguistic exercises again, sufficing to say that Michael was custodian of the children for considerable periods of time during which the parents were absent - in the case of Wade Robson's father he was in Australia having a breakdown - and that no other biological family members were present. 

Edited March 22, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You are getting involved in one of your linguistic exercises again, sufficing to say that Michael was custodian of the children for considerable periods of time during which the parents were absent - in the case of Wade Robson's father he was in Australia having a breakdown. 

Being a custodian doesn't necessarily mean that children would have that deep emotional bond with him that they would climb into his bed when feeling in need of comfort and intimacy. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Being a custodian doesn't necessarily mean that children would have that deep emotional bond with him that they would climb into his bed when feeling in need of comfort and intimacy. 

You really need to watch the documentary. You really do. You are asking the wrong questions. It is otherwise impossible to continue this discussion.

It is evident that the children certainly had a deep emotional bond with Michael. Much of the documentary focuses in fact on this bond!

Edited March 22, 2019 by DieselDaisy